Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32490271›Full record

ArticleJournal of preventive medicine and hygiene2020

Pertussis immunization in healthcare workers working in pediatric settings: Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) of Occupational Physicians. Preliminary results from a web-based survey (2017).

M RICCò, L Vezzosi, G Gualerzi, N L Bragazzi, F Balzarini

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Revue d'epidemiologie et de sante publique · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

M RICCòIRCCS-AUSL di Reggio Emilia; Department of Public Health, Service for Health and Safety in the Workplace; Reggio Emilia (RE), Italy.
L VezzosiUniversity of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Department of Experimental Medicine, Naples (NA), Italy.
G GualerziUniversity of Parma, Department of Medicine and Surgery; School of Medicine, Parma (PR), Italy.
N L BragazziLaboratory for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, Toronto, Canada.
F BalzariniUniversity "Vita e Salute", San Raffaele Hospital, Milan (MI), Italy.
Azienda Sanitaria Unità Locale di Reggio Emilia · ITUniversity of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" · ITUniversity of Parma · ITYork University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe present study aims to characterize knowledge, attitudes and practices in a sample of occupational physicians (OPh) towards pertussis immunization in healthcare workers (HCWs) from pediatric settings. MATERIAL AND

methodsA total of 148 OPh (45.9% males, mean age of 40.3 ± 13.2 years) compiled a web questionnaire including a knowledge test on Italian recommendations for HCWs, epidemiology and pathology of pertussis infection, being then investigated about risk perceptions and vaccination practices. A General Knowledge Score (GKS) and a Risk Perception Score (RPS) were calculated. Multivariate odds ratios (OR) for predictors of vaccine propensity were calculated through regression analysis.

results78 participants regularly recalled pertussis vaccination status and/or performed pertussis vaccination in HCWs (52.7%). Proactive status was correlated with the aim to avoid pertussis infection in HCWs and its diffusion to other adults (p < 0.001, both statements). GKS was satisfying (72.4% ± 14.9), but participants underestimated the clinical issues of pertussis infection (RPS 60.8% ± 9.5) when confronted with influenza (73.9% ± 10.9) and HBV infection (68.1% ± 10.1). GKS and RPS were well correlated (r = 0.244, p = 0.003). Eventually, a better GKS and the aim to avoid pertussis infection in HCWs were predictive of a proactive status for pertussis vaccination (OR 4.186 95%CI 1.809-9.685 and OR 11.459, 95%CI 3.312-39.651, respectively).

conclusionsAdherence of OPh to HCWs pertussis vaccination was unsatisfying. As knowledge status was predictive for vaccine propensity, information programs for OPh should be more appropriately designed, stressing that HCWs may represent a significant reservoir for pertussis infection in high risk groups (e.g. children/newborns, frail elderly).

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelClinical CompetenceHealth PersonnelOccupational MedicineAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisOdds RatioPediatricsPertussis VaccinePractice Patterns, Physicians'Whooping CoughPertussis VaccineDiptheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis VaccinesHealthcare workersOccupational physiciansPertussis vaccine

Identifiers

PMID32490271
PMCPMC7225653
OpenAlexW3030355309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.